| From: | Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Vacuum ERRORs out considering freezing dead tuples from before OldestXmin |
| Date: | 2024-07-22 13:32:12 |
| Message-ID: | CAAKRu_anqNS0R7z6M=swns0EV+RKHcbM_ELOJihNtnP3m8rwcw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Jul 21, 2024 at 4:29 PM Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jul 21, 2024 at 12:51 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> > I do not think the answer to this is to nag the respective animal
> > owners to raise PG_TEST_TIMEOUT_DEFAULT. IMV this test is simply
> > not worth the cycles it takes, at least not for these machines.
>
> Can't we just move it to PG_TEST_EXTRA? Alongside the existing
> "xid_wraparound" test?
>
> We didn't even have basic coverage of multi-pass VACUUMs before now.
> This new test added that coverage. I think that it will pull its
> weight.
Andres has suggested in the past that we allow maintenance_work_mem be
set to a lower value or introduce some kind of development GUC so that
we can more easily test multiple pass index vacuuming. Do you think
this would be worth it?
- Melanie
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2024-07-22 13:37:26 | Re: Incremental backup from a streaming replication standby fails |
| Previous Message | Melanie Plageman | 2024-07-22 13:30:24 | Re: Vacuum ERRORs out considering freezing dead tuples from before OldestXmin |